State v. Priester, 530 P.3d 118

Background

Defendant was convicted after a bench trial of multiple offenses, including attempted first‑degree rape, strangulation, assault (DV), menacing (DV), unlawful possession of cocaine, and harassment.
The victim (CP) testified she refused sex; defendant pulled down her underwear, climbed on top of her, attempted intercourse after she pushed him off, and pinned/grabbed her arms and choked her; police interviews and recorded testimony were admitted.
At sentencing the court orally imposed probation with a shorthand reference to a “DV package” for the domestic‑violence counts; the specific special conditions (including “Disclose nature of conviction to any domestic partner”) first appeared in the written Uniform Criminal Judgment (UCJ).
Defendant moved for a judgment of acquittal on attempted first‑degree rape; the trial court denied the motion and convicted him. He appealed, challenging the denial of acquittal and the probation condition as (a) imposed for the first time in the written judgment and (b) unconstitutionally vague.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction (sufficiency of evidence) but held the probation condition was (1) imposed for the first time in the written judgment because the shorthand “DV package” did not make the specific conditions apparent in the record, and (2) the phrase “any domestic partner” in the disclosure condition is unconstitutionally vague. The case was remanded for resentencing.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for attempted first‑degree rape (motion for acquittal)	State: testimony and defendant’s admissions (he tried to have sex after CP said no and pinned her) supplied sufficient evidence of substantial step and forcible compulsion.	Priester: evidence was insufficient to prove forcible compulsion beyond a reasonable doubt.	Court: Affirmed — a reasonable factfinder could find a substantial step and forcible compulsion based on testimony and defendant’s statements.
Whether the probation condition was announced in open court (imposed first in the written judgment)	State: oral reference to “DV package” at sentencing sufficiently announced the package and its conditions.	Priester: shorthand reference did not make the specific condition apparent in the record; condition was first imposed in the written judgment, requiring resentencing.	Court: The shorthand “DV package” did not show a shared, definite meaning or include the specific condition on the record; condition was imposed first in the judgment — remand for resentencing.
Vagueness of probation condition requiring disclosure to “any domestic partner”	State: defendant had opportunity to object at sentencing; any vagueness could be cured by probation officer guidance.	Priester: the phrase is ambiguous (multiple definitions, subjective terms like “serious/lasting/romantic”) and allows arbitrary enforcement.	Court: Condition is unconstitutionally vague under the Fourteenth Amendment — lacks clear meaning and invites arbitrary enforcement.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Cunningham, 320 Or 47 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence on motion for acquittal)
State v. Nygaard, 303 Or App 793 (definition and scope of forcible compulsion)
State v. White, 269 Or App 255 (when shorthand references at sentencing may suffice because the recommendation was adopted and apparent in context)
State v. Macy, 312 Or App 234 (shorthand “package” language may be ambiguous; conditions not apparent in record cannot be treated as orally pronounced)
State v. Bates, 315 Or App 402 (error to impose sentence terms first in written judgment; remand for resentencing)
State v. Farris, 312 Or App 618 (vagueness analysis for probation conditions)
Penn v. Board of Parole, 365 Or 607 (approach to construing undefined terms in probation conditions)
United States v. Reeves, 591 F.3d 77 (persuasive authority holding “significant romantic relationship” vague in probation condition)